Right To Life

The argument that all people have a right to life and that right is held above all others is simply not supported by any situation in our society. A great example is organ donation. If the right to life actually outweighed all other rights, then organ donation would be compulsory – yet it is not. In some views, having a right to life includes having a right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life. But suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum someone needs for continued life is something he/she has no right at all to be given? The fact that for continued life a person needs the continual use of your kidneys does not establish that he has a right to be given the use of your kidneys. Nobody has any right to use your kidneys unless you give him such right. If you allow such use, this is simply a kindness on your part, and not something he/she can claim from you as his/her due. Nobody is morally or legally required to make large sacrifices of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments for one second let alone nine months, in order to keep someone alive. Aren't all forms of self-defense against a "life"? If one's reasoning has solely to do with the fetus being a "life", then why would it not apply to other forms of self-defense, or any harm against other "life", for that matter? Being a "life" doesn't grant you the right to use another person's body for any reason, even to sustain your own life. This is precisely why organ donation is not compulsory. To clarify, self-defense is simply defending yourself from unwanted use of your body in some way. The defense can be anything from hitting someone, leaving the room, to killing. As long as it is necessary force, it is self-defense. It is self-defense if you hit me and I hit you to get away (no killing necessary for it to be self defense).

What do pro-lifers really care about?

A thinking, feeling woman should not be expected to give up her health, her body, her physical integrity, suffer lasting complications, for the sake of a fetus. We don't even require that for grown, thinking, feeling people. The fact that pregnancy MAY happen doesn't mean you should willingly suffer it. Just like you may be injured if you drive recklessly, but that doesn't mean you should punish yourself by not getting medical treatment.

So what it basically comes down to is: the woman—her life, her livelihood, her health, her presence and support (physical, economical, emotional) in the live's of others, including her partner/spouse, her family, any other children she might have (and she probably does, because, statistically, most women who have abortions have at least one child already)—is not nearly as important as the life/existence of that fetus to many pro-lifers.

It doesn't matter if a pregnancy will cost her life or livelihood. It doesn't matter if the physical health effects of a pregnancy will keep the woman out of work, put her at risk for losing her job, keep her from being able to take of herself, her other children, or her family. At the end of the day, pro-life views show that they think a fetus as the most important "individual"; it's existence the most important thing to preserve.

5 poor arguments (to me) against homosexuality & gay marriage

1) Homosexuality is unnatural.
Then why has homosexuality been observed in thousands of species of animals? Why are there physical differences in the brain structure of heterosexual and homosexual people? Why is there a difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men? Why is it that, in homosexual men, neurons in the INAH3 are packed more closely together than in heterosexual men? Why do connections in the amygdalas of homosexual men resemble those of heterosexual women? Why do connections in the amygdala of homosexual women resemble those of heterosexual men? Did you know that the tiny inaudible sounds our ears make are different for lesbian ears than heterosexual ears? Did you know that there are physical differences in the brain structure of heterosexual and homosexual people? Did you know that gay men have a detestably different scent/body odor in their sweat than straight men in double-blind studies? What about the piling evidence that supports the gay gene and that children are born gay? If homosexuality is, in fact, "unnatural" then why are many unnatural things viewed as "good" and many "natural" things viewed as "bad"? Do you view homosexuality as a disease that can be "cured"?

2) Homosexual couples cannot have children.
Why isn't reproduction a criteria for people being allowed to get married? Why are children not a necessary component of marriage? What about infertile heterosexual couples? Should heterosexual couples not be able to get married on the basis that they are unable to produce children? What about couples who do not even want children? Should couples not be able to get married on the basis that they do not want children? What about homosexual couples who use surrogates or become surrogates themselves? What about homosexual couples who use invitro fertilization? What about homosexual women who are impregnated by their rapist?

3) Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman.
If this is true, why was it not unheard of for people to marry more than one spouse hundreds of years ago? Why was polygamy common thousands and even hundreds of years ago? Wasn't marriage originally a contract between the couples and the state? Hasn't marriage evolved over the past thousands of years? Why say that there was anything "traditional" about marriage when that is historically untrue? Did you know that, "traditionally," men were given more rights? Would you rather go back to a time where women had barely any rights to money, property or their own children during or after a marriage?

4) Religion.
Isn't the proper, historical and religious term for religious marriages called "wedlock"? Wasn't the word "marriage" NOT coined by religion? Weren't there polygamous relationships in the bible? Don't people who aren't religiously affiliated able to get married? What does a persons religion have anything to do with marriage as a whole? What does another persons marriage or reasons for getting marriage have anything to do with you? If the bible is not a legal document, and it marriage was not coined by religion, then why should everyone adhere to those religious beliefs? Why should a secular society conform to your beliefs when they have no meaningful basis in a non-Catholic/Christian world?

5) Homosexual relationships are harmful to children.
How exactly are they more harmful? Would you rather a child go to a mental institution than to go to a family where they will be loved and cared for and raised by two men or two women? Would you go up to a child who is facing imminent institutionalization, and tell her that that's nothing compared to having two mothers or fathers? Who cares if they shave her head, if she'll never have a family, if she'll lose her smile and her chance at a normal childhood? At least she won't have gay parents, right? If you can't pinpoint anything harmful or abusive, then on what basis do you have to call those relationships harmful or abusive? If you can't explain anything outside the context of your faith, why should the rest of us take you seriously and listen to what you have to say when it comes to our own lifestyle and policy decisions?

Businesses and contraception

"Should religiously-based businesses have to cover something that violates their religion, especially if the product in question is used over 80% of the time for purely recreational purposes?"

Employers are not even directly paying for birth control or contraception. They are paying for health insurance premiums. The health insurance company pays for the prescription, device or procedure. Only trained/licensed medical professionals can provide prescription contraception, abortion or procedures involving family planning. Religious freedom extends to individuals, not corporations. An individual who does not wish to use emergency contraception, due to religious reasons is perfectly acceptable. However, if that individual feels that they can hold their position as an employer over other's heads as a means to infringe on other people's freedom of religion, that is not okay. a violation of religious freedom would be forcing a business to actually take the contraceptives that they are offering. saying "It's against my religion to wash my hands after using the restroom, while I prepare your food afterwards, and I won't enforce my employees to either." It's against federal standards. As much as you can run your business as you please, you must also follow general federal law while doing it. Since it is now federal law to provide contraceptives in health insurance packages, businesses must follow it. We do not make special laws for religious people. That's not freedom of religion, that's religious privilege. Freedom of religion makes no laws respecting religion, meaning they don't get special privileges because they don't like something.

My wish

I only wish to keep the government out of other people's personal decisions, whatever they may believe for themselves. Whatever your own opinions about an issue may be, politicians should not be passing laws to force their own personal opinions onto anyone else who might want to make a different choice with her own body. The decision about what is right and what should be legislated are separate and distinct issues.

Euthanasia

It is the most extreme disrespect for a government to override an individuals decision to exit. If death is inevitable but the process will be drawn out, undignified and filled with pain then how can anybody have the audacity to veto your desire to retain a little dignity and fore go the entirely negative process of the agony of a long, drawn own death? It is presumptuous to think that medicine keeping people alive and suffering to the end is the correct way. Modern medicine may not be right in trying to keep people alive who truly have no life at all and never will again. If you are suffering and would like to die on your own terms, even as the last bastion of control over your own failing body, would it not be okay to take your life into you own hands and end the suffering? For terminally ill patients, there is no turning back. It wastes resources and hospital space to keep people alive who are not even hanging on anymore. Imagine how many people could get care if the people who were left waiting to die were not taking up the resources keeping them from death only for a little longer. Patients deserve to choose their own fate. Euthanasia can also give survivors of the deceased some comfort knowing their loved one did not suffer any more than was absolutely necessary.

Egalitarianism

 Feminism has become to entangled with self interest politics. Egalitarianism does not have to connotation of being female-centric. Most feminists care only for women's issues so they chose to be feminists. Most feminist lobbies only look out for what is best for us, but obviously what is best for one group of society might conflict with equality. Egalitarians express the idea that all people are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. It's also a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs. You're entitled to your opinion on what a woman should do and how the dynamic between a married couple should be, but you do not have the right to subjugate other people and force them to live by your standards. All individuals are different and choose to live their lives in ways which they think is best. There's no evidence to suggest that making women inferior benefits society. Women make up half of the worlds population and deserve to have the right to live their lives the way they choose and the way they see fit. If that choice is to be a stay at home mother, then there's nothing wrong with that. If she chooses to enter the work force, then there's nothing wrong with that. Women have options and don't have to limit themselves to one mode of action. If a woman has dreams and goals then she should chase them, just as any member of the human race should. Equality between both sexes promotes a happier and thriving society. No, I am not a communist or socialist and to believe in equality does not mean that I'm either. I believe in both sexes having equal opportunities to achieve their goals and be treated fairly. I don't believe in forcing a woman to do anything she doesn't want to do. If a woman doesn't want to work, then why should she have to?